﻿Vote green ﻿andy brown

Ten good reasons to stay in the EU1. Leaving will cost jobs. Many of them in manufacturing. The EU gives businesses access to 500 million customers. Why would any international business want to be outside the EU and at risk of export tariffs? Nationally leaving the EU will put at risk jobs such as those at Nissan in Sunderland. Locally it risks jobs in Rolls Royce at Barnoldswick and Landis Lund at Crosshills. 2. The EU gives us consistent rights for workers - leave and every country will be tempted to bid to offer the lowest rights to attract multi-national companies.3. If we leave we will still have to trade with the EU and they will make all the rules without us having any say.4. Farmers will lose income. We produce too little of our own food as it is. No farmer likes EU bureaucracy but what would happen to farming without EU subsidies? Subsidies are highly likely to be much lower after an EU exit.5. We live in a global economy. It needs global guidance and control to be successful. We need stronger international organisations not weaker, more isolated ones.6. The vast majority of EU laws are very sensible. For example the much criticised law that all new vacuum cleaners must use less power isn't about forcing people to spend twice as long cleaning it is about helping people to cut their power bills and save energy by having efficient machines. Better to consume less electricity than to give money to Saudi Arabia or Russia to pump more oil. 7. Without the EU we would have to become much more dependent on the USA. We wouldn't regain our former glory we wouldbecome America's poodle. There are many things to like about American society such as its freedoms and its creativity but after what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan the dangers of getting too dependent on the "leader of the free world" should be self evident. 8. One little country out on its own can be easily ignored. The whole of Europe cannot.9. The rest of Europe will be much weaker without us. The EU would become dominated by Germany and this is unlikely to be to our advantage or to be helpful for the vast majority of European people.10. The EU has brought us 70 years of peace. My grandfather fought in a European war. My father fought in a European war. I haven't had to because of the EU. Unpredictable and unpleasant things happen when you dismantle existing setups. Almost no one expected what happened in Yugoslavia. No one knows what an EU breakup would bring.Ten Ways the EU needs to Change1. It should do more to use its collective strength to increase investment in environmental, scientific and modern technology to position Europe for future success.2. The German government inspired insistence on budgets being balanced always and everywhere needs to be ended. The EU needs managed growth not recession and deflation.3. It should strengthen support for farmers to re-orientate their production methods so that sustainable food production becomes more economic.4. It should control and guide the banking system across Europe so that excessive gambles cannot put at risk our future.5. It should do more to foster low energy consumption technology to ensure that Europe doesn't depend on Russian oil and gas.6. It's central bank should be free to act and to respond quickly to economic circumstances. We need flexible and rapid boosts to the EU economy during downturns and Europe wide damping down of excessive booms before they go bust. 7. It should only make decisions about things that need to be decided at a European level. As many decisions as possible need to be left with or returned to national and local government. 8. It needs to increase the power of the European parliament over unelected officials and over the control of budgets.9. It should steadily reduce the power of veto from nation states so that it can make quick decisions about the things that need to be agreed across the continent.10. It should expand further only on the basis of two categories of membership. New members making rapid adjustments to change can't follow exactly the same rules as long established members who have already implemented rights and responsibilities.

At the end of the Second World War Britain had cities recovering from bomb sites, debts considerably greater than its entire yearly GDP and an exhausted population still suffering under rationing. Yet the country managed to create the NHS, re-build and expand the welfare state, and invest in public services. The result was 30 years of growth which provided excellent opportunities for business, very low unemployment, very low inflation and a massive reduction in government debt compared to GDP.In 2008 bank invested more money on exotic financial derivatives than was earned by the entire global economy in that year. When those investments collapsed in value and we had to bail the banks out we were told that the government financial deficit that resulted meant we could no longer afford the welfare state and we had to cut back on public services. It was constantly repeated that in times of Austerity hard choices had to be made. Somehow the people who were expected to experience the hardship were not those who caused the problem but the poor and the vulnerable.Does anyone seriously believe that what went wrong in 2008 was that welfare claimants suddenly became feckless en masse at the same time? Or was the choice to go for austerity much more to do with an ideology that wants to blame the poor for the failings of those who should have been looking after our economy? We showed after the war that it is perfectly possible to strengthen the welfare state, have a successful economy and reduce government debts to manageable levels. Since 2008 we have been demonstrating that attacks on the welfare state don't help to cure any of our economic challenges.Any one of us could become ill, could have a child who needed specialist medical care, could become out of work or disabled, could find a member of their family needs but can't afford a home, or could become in need of care when we get elderly. The existence of a safety net to protect the vulnerable is a highly valuable piece of security which leaves each of us feeling that if we needed support the community would offer it. It is not a luxury that we can't afford. It is a sign of a healthy society that is happy to provide support for those who need it. Naturally we need to make sure that those who receive that support are genuinely in need. But we don't need to make sure that anyone who needs our support is subject to constant invasive bureaucratic checks. I recently heard a double amputee talk on the radio. He had just had his benefits cut because he failed to attend a meeting. His disability meant that he couldn't get there but they punished him just the same. Is that the kind of society we want?No one likes paying taxes but it is no bad thing to pay one's share to make sure that everyone who really needs help gets it and we are not all looking over our shoulders wondering what would happen if something went wrong and we needed help from a welfare state that has ceased to really function. In the UK the top rate of income tax was over 85% taxation between 1945 and 1975. During that period the UK experienced its biggest and most successful boom. In 2015 the top rate of taxation is 45% and after the election we were told that the rate had to be cut because it would help wealth to trickle down to the poor. The vast majority of working people have seen their real pay steadily decline since 2008. They might be forgiven for asking when the trickle down will begin. Those who cannot work and depend on the support of the rest of the community have experienced constant tightening of the rules and reductions of payments, for example via the bedroom tax. They might also be forgiven for wondering whether all this was necessary whilst £400 billion was being printed to support the banks.We can live in a more secure and fairer society and achieve successful economic growth. We achieved exactly this after 1945. Or we can live in a meaner, more competitive society where one part of the private sector is allowed to take enormous risks with our economic future and receive bailouts and tax cuts whilst those with genuine needs are denied our help. Which do you prefer?Vote Green 2015

Rural villages in the Skipton and Ripon area are under increasing threat from excessive housing development. They are not alone. This is a national problem.We have got used to the idea that we have a planning system in this country which is run by the local council and is designed to make sure that people can build things but only if they don't damage the environment or the local community. We can no longer rely on that. The cause is a decision by the Conservative/Liberal Democrat Coalition to change the way that planning law works and to give a presumption in favour of development. As Melisa Kite, writing in the Daily Mail in 2013 explained:"Developers wanting approval for housing schemes opposed by locals are simply appealing to the Government's National Planning Inspectorate - which often gives the go-ahead if councils haven't published their own plans for new housing"The plans that the local councils are supposed to submit require them to identify enough development for five years worth of housing plus 5% and it is the National Planning Inspectorate not the local council which determines what enough development is. They are not easy to satisfy and so local councils are caught in a trap. They either identify the high volumes of housing demanded by the Inspectorate - and take much of the blame for a problem created elsewhere - or they have no plan and the housing is approved anyway.Even when the council has a plan and is opposed to a scheme they can lose against a determined developer who is prepared to go to appeal. In a time of cuts, few councils have the financial resources or the staff time and knowledge needed to go through a planning process if there is even the remotest chance that they might lose.As a result green-field sites that local people want to protect are under threat of development across North Yorkshire. People in villages such as Embsay have run major campaigns against drastic changes to the character of their environment not because they are opposed to affordable local housing or any development at all. Their opposition is to a lack of any real say about how much, where and when development will take place. My own village of Cononley went through major growth with a development at Cononley Ings. This, with a few infill developments, should have met all reasonable needs for many years to come. But the National Planning Inspectorate ignores the past and insists on its five years growth plus 5%. The result is a scheme at Madge Bank, which because of traffic dangers is opposed by virtually the entire village, is at risk of getting the go ahead. The people of Ripon are currently facing similarly unwelcome development in Doublegates Quary and Ash Grove. Local people know and understand what is needed in the local environment.The people opposing these schemes aren't opposed to all local development and fully understand the need to provide more local affordable housing. We simply want to keep in place sensible rules which have protected our environment for over 60 years. The Green Belt has been accepted policy by all major political parties since the Second World War and even earlier. It is now under threat by an ideologically driven conviction that unfettered private enterprise is good and planning laws are a pesky nuisance. Like the vast majority of people I am very comfortable with responsible private enterprise. There are plenty of good construction companies who are putting forward well thought out planning proposals that will enhance the opportunities for local housing without wrecking the environment. Weakening planning laws is not a way to help or encourage them. It is a way to let cowboy developers undercut them and inflict lasting damage on our rural communities and our environment.When did the Conservatives stop being in favour of conserving things?

Professional politicians are notorious for thinking short term and for only saying what the opinion polls and the focus groups have told them will be a popular thing to say this week. That is not an accusation you can focus on the Greens.There is nothing of greater long term significance than the health of the planet but the short term costs and the temporary inconveniences of taking action to achieve this have created some astonishingly virulent opposition.2014 proved to be the hottest year on record in the UK and we know that the levels of carbon dioxide in the air are already at higher levels than at any time in the existence of humanity. We can't possibly know for certain what impact CO2 will have on the climate or on acidification of the oceans. What we do know is that we have created the high levels of CO2. If, as the vast majority of objective scientists believe, weather is becoming increasingly chaotic and volatile as a result, then the long term costs will be extreme. We have a choice. We can either invest in avoiding climate change at the risk of increased short term costs or we will experience increasing disruption to agriculture and travel. Even relatively small rises in sea levels would risk losing large parts of cities such as London where the Thames barrier is now in use regularly. With growing populations and increasing wealth in the third world we either spend money on developing new products which consume less energy and improve insulation of homes and workplaces or we have to spend more on fuel. The current decline in price is due to recession and few people expect it to be sustained over the long term. We can either invest in innovative environmental industries, which will help to create healthy competitive employers, or give more of our money to unpleasant regimes and take increasing risks to generate power. As they discovered in Japan and in Chernobyl, nuclear power comes at a heavy price. The cost of decommissioning nuclear power stations will be with us for generations. Fracking for gas beneath complex geology with many faults, old mine shafts and untraceable underground water routes is highly dangerous in a small island. Even solar, wind and hydro-electric power schemes carry environmental costs and innovative solutions, such as graphene facilitating the cheap production of hydrogen, will need serious investment before they can take off.Right now the best way to tackle climate change is cut down on the use of energy. We need a massive incentive programme encouraging people and companies to switch to lower energy consumption. The serious improvement in miles per gallon achieved by petrol cars is an example of what can be achieved and there are insulating wallpapers that can save 30% on your fuel bill.And the response of the current government? You can get a pathetic low interest loan to cover the cost of insulating your home and the tiny amount of actual cash they made available was so oversubscribed that the scheme ran out of money on the first day. Oh and they are licensing fracking of the land beneath beautiful countryside across the north in the hope of going full steam ahead after the election.We need energy conservation to be at the heart of our economic plan and central to our research and investment programme. Only one party sees environmental issues as being critical to our long term future and has been prepared to face down short term unpopularity and clearly state that nothing is more important than the health of the planet that we live on. Surely that is worth voting for.Think about the long term. Vote Green

I thoroughly enjoy living in a multi-cultural society. To get the benefits of a diverse and rich culture each of us has to learn to respect the values and the priorities of those who are different to us. One of the great strengths of British society is that the vast majority of people have always shown great toleration of the rights of minorities.But this does not mean giving up on core values that the majority of us hold dear. For me freedom of speech is absolutely central to my most deeply held beliefs. I want to be able to read what I like and think that the individual's pursuit of scientific and artistic knowledge should not be artificially restricted by religious leaders telling us what we are allowed to study. We would still believe the Sun went round the earth if we'd allowed our priests to dominate.When the Satanic Verses first came out I realised that I had enjoyed several of the novels of Salman Rushdie and would like to read this book for myself. I was roundly bored and couldn't for the life of me see what all the fuss was about. But I wanted to make up my own mind and was appalled that the book was taken off the shelves in many stores because of death threats. I would be astonished if more than one in a thousand of those who protested about the book had read even one page of it but that didn't stop them trying to intimidate the author to give up his strongly held belief that he should be able to write what interested him.I think it is vital that people in a free society should have the right to read and create what they like unless, as is the case with child pornography, there is evidence that this leads to harm to others. I also apply this principle to the right to exercise your own choices about religion. Everyone should be free to practice their religion until that clashes with harm to others. I happen to think that the tiny minority of men - be they extreme Jews or extreme Muslims - who want to restrict what women can do with their lives fall into this category. A woman's right to be able to proudly display her face and thus have a proper opportunity to develop a personality and be a full part of a wider society trumps a man's right to interpret his religion in an aggressively anti-female way. I therefore strongly oppose the wearing of the veil and, whilst I would not legally ban it, I would be in favour of adopting the old Turkish approach of insisting that anyone wishing to use a public service cannot wear one.We live in a world economy with huge numbers of people travelling across the globe every day. Those of us who want to live in this real world of international exchange of ideas, information and culture need to face down two serious enemies. The first is those who like Nigel Farage who want us to retreat into a little England, put up barriers around ourselves and pretend that we can return to some glorious past where everyone drank beer together and there was no fifth column. We are not two separate communities - we are one diverse community and the vast majority of Muslims want nothing to do with the terrorists who claim to act in their name.But the second enemy is just as important to strongly oppose. When our shared values are under attack we need to stand up clearly for ideas which are fundamental to the vast majority of people in this country. I stand for free speech and the rights of women and I will not allow narrow minded UKIP bigots - to pretend that they are the only people who do. Whether they blame their medication for making them make racist statements or not.Faced with a direct challenge to our values it is heartening to see so many people standing up and saying we are one community and we are all Charlie.

We have some tremendous teachers in this country who do a fantastic job despite getting little or no thanks from the Government. Their job is being made much harder by a whole series of ideologically driven attacks on education from people who have little or no experience of actually doing the job. As someone who has actually taught difficult inner city kids and successfully managed some of the most challenging educational services in the country it seems to me that there are ten big things wrong with the Governments have been tackling education:1. The service is constantly being re-organised and changed for no good reason. No child cares whether their school is guided by the elected local authority or the appointed academy governors, yet massive amounts of time and energy have been spent on a bureaucratic change which has no direct impact on teaching and learning.2. Teachers are being told by national government what they should teach their children to interest them. Those who actually teach students understand what they need to learn a lot better than nostalgic Government Ministers who are imposing a clumsy old fashioned curriculum on them.3. Children's success depends mostly upon where their parents can afford to live and consequently how good the local school is. There is little incentive or support for those who teach in inner cities. The pupil premium is too low to make an impact on disadvantage. We are wasting the potential talent of too many of our children.4. Ofsted has ceased to be an independent trusted inspectorate. It finds what the government has paid it to find and its inspections risk becoming meaningless checks of results statistics. 5. There is too little focus on top quality practical vocational education. An apprenticeship is still seen as a second class opportunity compared with University whilst in fact it represents for many a first class route to a good career. 6. We have made University education so expensive that only the wealthy can afford it. £9,000 a year plus living expenses represents debts of up to £50,000. 7. There is little recognition of the value of lifelong learning. We need to combine learning and work more effectively from a young age to make learning more relevant and more fun and we need much more emphasis on helping adults to gain new skills and qualifications and to retrain.8. We are not investing enough in training people to acquire science and technology skills that we need to tackle new challenges we face such as environmental protection. We are training for the past not for the future.9. We have ceased to value our public services and been sold the illusion that we cannot afford to fund them properly. Our economy is not in a mess because we over invested in the public sector. It is a mess because we under controlled highly paid investment bankers in the private sector.10. Too many of our school buildings and far too much of our equipment are not fit for purpose. We have failed to invest properly in training our young people to compete in a world economy.Andy Brown is The Green Candidate for Skipton and Ripon at the General Election in May. He has real practical experience of running educational services well in challenging environments. He taught in inner city colleges for over 20 years before becoming Deputy Principal of Keighley College, Director of Hillsborough College in Sheffield. In each of these roles he improved results, student numbers and finances. He then worked as Executive Director of the Learning and Skills Council in the Black Country before becoming Director of Young People's Learning for Yorkshire and the Humber. He is passionate about protecting and improving education. If you are interested in learning more about Green ideas then follow him on Twitter via @voteandybrown or visit the Skipton and Craven Green Party Website and express your own views on what needs to be done to help your local school or college.